It's not really news anymore that less than 20% of brand's Facebook posts are being seen by fans, so why are we still so hung up on it?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument: marketing has been free up until recently so why are they doing this? Also, it can be demoralising to pay for views when you've potential already paid for the fans in the first place. However, we wouldn't expect to place adverts in business publications without a fee so why do we think that we should be able to use social platforms for free? Facebook is also a business and has to make a profit.
Not only that, Facebook is the largest social network with 1.3 billion active monthly users and reported smartphone use at an average of 14 visits a day to their website. According to Hubspot, 74% of all marketers say Facebook is important to their lead generation strategies with over half finding custom via Facebook in the past year.
Audiences are consuming more and more and have an insatiable appetite for relevant, topical content relating to their favourite brands. We've seen many leads come via Facebook for our clients which transform into tangible, trackable revenue. If these leads came via any other medium we would expect to pay for them so why is social any different? Time and time again we're seeing that social platforms such as Facebook are in the top referrers to client websites, often producing high dwell time and repeat visits.
With so much content being shared on the web (around 4.75 billion content items daily on Facebook alone) combined with our 24/7 hunger for the digital drug, we're in danger of becoming overwhelmed. Curating the content is appropriate so that the audience see a personalised feed tailored around the brands they are truly passionate about.
Many people have hit out about Facebook charging and said they will move to social networks such as Twitter, Google+ or Instagram. However, this isn't something that is exclusive to Facebook. All social networks have the potential to charge – Twitter is already offering above-the-line promotion and Instagram is actually owned by Facebook. LinkedIn is following suit and Google+ will likely charge for content in the near future.
Social media has the capacity to reach millions of people at a great speed. There has to be a price put upon something that is this successful at lead generation, conversion and brand engagement. Of course, the viewer can control to an extent what we do or don't see – we can hover over posts to click whether we follow/unfollow/don't see it or want more of it. Paying for content to be seen will make businesses question how useful and interesting their content is which should result in a better quality of what is shared.
The primary misconception and one of the primary causes of brand dissonance is that content is expected to be a cheaper or free option and this is not the case. Companies that are managing their content marketing successfully are probably paying an agency to plan the content, research it, write it, edit it, distribute it, promote it (eg paid), track it and report it – not as free as you might think. Content has to be well put together and interesting for your market. If it is relevant and useful then not only will it be seen, it will be shared, and that is where you can get exposure with less money: by creating content that people find of interest or value.
At the end of the day, the priority for Facebook is to keep their viewers happy whilst creating a profitable platform. However there is always a dark side associated with native advertising which is that people are losing trust in what they see on their feed. As more companies pay for sponsored content Facebook runs the risk of becoming one big advertising platform, which means it will lose its credibility, personalised content priority and customer-centric approach along with its organic nature. This brings into question how sustainable this decision will be for Facebook for the future and what long-term trust issues it might cause.
However, when it comes to using Facebook as part of a content marketing strategy, we find it to be powerful, results-focused and cost effective, delivering a real value to our clients. Sure, we may be annoyed that Facebook are charging but has anyone asked what the actual cost is? Realistically, you are looking at thousands of pounds to advertise via broadcast or print whereas with social it equates to pence via a medium that you can track quickly, see proven results and build real relationships. Surely, it's more costly to your brand to ignore these changes? #JustSaying
Jess Collins is creative director at Type Communications.
To get weekly news analysis, job alerts and event notifications direct to your inbox, sign up free for Media Network membership.
All Guardian Media Network content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'Advertisement feature'. Find out more here.
